Quantitative colour Doppler and greyscale ultrasound for evaluating prostate cancer

Ultrasound ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1742271X2095282
Author(s):  
Khalid Ashi ◽  
Brooke Kirkham ◽  
Anil Chauhan ◽  
Susan M Schultz ◽  
Bonnie J Brake ◽  
...  

Introduction Although transrectal ultrasound is routinely performed for imaging prostate lesions, colour Doppler imaging visualizing vascularity is not commonly used for diagnosis. The goal of this study was to measure vascular and echogenic differences between malignant and benign lesions of the prostate by quantitative colour Doppler and greyscale transrectal ultrasound. Methods Greyscale and colour Doppler ultrasound images of the prostate were acquired in 16 subjects with biopsy-proven malignant or benign lesions. Echogenicity and microvascular flow velocity of each lesion were measured by quantitative image analysis. Flow velocity was measured over several cardiac cycles and the velocity–time waveform was used to determine microvascular pulsatility index and microvascular resistivity index. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the malignant and benign groups. Results Median microvascular flow velocity of the malignant lesions was 1.25 cm/s compared to 0.36 cm/s for the benign lesions. Median pulsatility and resistive indices of the malignant lesions were 1.55 and 0.68, respectively versus 6.38 and 1.0 for the benign lesions. Malignant lesions were more hypoechoic relative to the surrounding tissue, with median echogenicity of 0.24 compared to 0.76 for the benign lesions. The differences between the malignant and benign groups for each measurement were significant (p < 0.01). Conclusion Marked differences were observed in flow velocity, microvascular pulsatility, microvascular resistance, and echogenicity of prostate cancer measured with quantitative colour Doppler and greyscale ultrasound imaging. Vascular differences measured together with echogenicity have the combined potential to characterize malignant and benign prostate lesions.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Xiaofu Huang ◽  
Ming Chen ◽  
Peizhong Liu ◽  
Yongzhao Du

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. Early detection of prostate cancer is the key to successful treatment. Ultrasound imaging is one of the most suitable methods for the early detection of prostate cancer. Although ultrasound images can show cancer lesions, subjective interpretation is not accurate. Therefore, this paper proposes a transrectal ultrasound image analysis method, aiming at characterizing prostate tissue through image processing to evaluate the possibility of malignant tumours. Firstly, the input image is preprocessed by optical density conversion. Then, local binarization and Gaussian Markov random fields are used to extract texture features, and the linear combination is performed. Finally, the fused texture features are provided to SVM classifier for classification. The method has been applied to data set of 342 transrectal ultrasound images obtained from hospitals with an accuracy of 70.93%, sensitivity of 70.00%, and specificity of 71.74%. The experimental results show that it is possible to distinguish cancerous tissues from noncancerous tissues to some extent.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10589-10589
Author(s):  
Joseph W. Kim ◽  
Maria Liza Lindenberg ◽  
William L. Dahut ◽  
James L. Gulley ◽  
Ravi A. Madan ◽  
...  

10589 Background: We evaluated the clinical utility of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT bone scan (18F-NaF) in the detection of bone metastases in patients (pts) with prostate cancer in comparison with Technetium-99m MDP bone scan (TcBS). Methods: In a prospective study, from October 2010-December 2011, 30 prostate cancer pts (ages 51-79), 21 with known bone metastases and 9 without known bone metastases, had18F-NaF and a TcBS performed. Abnormal foci of uptake on both TcBS and 18F-NaFwere classified as benign, malignant or indeterminate. Benign lesions included uptake in the joints and linear uptake at the endplates of the vertebral bodies consistent with degenerative changes. Malignant uptake on 18F-NaF scans was confirmed by characteristic osteoblastic features on CT. All TcBS and 18F-NaF were reviewed by an experienced nuclear medicine physician. For the patient-based analysis, scan results were categorized as positive (POS) = any malignant lesion; indeterminate (IND) = not distinctly malignant or benign; negative (NEG) = benign lesions only. Results: In the lesion-based analysis, 21 of 30 (70%) pts had more malignant lesions identified on 18F-NaF than on TcBS. The mean number of additional malignant lesions per patient on 18F-NaF vs TcBS was 4. Eight of the 30 pts had same number of malignant lesions identified in both studies. One of 30 pts had one less malignant lesion identified on 18F-NaF than on TcBS. CT correlation by 18F-NaF PET/CT of this particular lesion did not confirm osteoblastic feature. Malignant lesion distribution on 18F-NaF included: spine (28%), thorax (26%), pelvis (24%), long bones (13%) and skull (10%). In the patient-based analysis, 24 pts (80%) were POS by 18F-NaF, of whom 14 pts were POS, 8 were IND, and 2 were NEG by corresponding TcBS; in the 4 pts with NEG 18F-NaF, zero were POS, 2 were IND and 2 were NEG by corresponding TcBS. Conclusions: 18F-NaF identified more malignant lesions than TcBS. 18F-NaF may also add useful information in the management of advanced prostate cancer pts with and without known bone metastases.


1999 ◽  
pp. 1318-1321 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUDHANSHU GARG ◽  
BJ??RN FORTLING ◽  
DAVID CHADWICK ◽  
MARY C. ROBINSON ◽  
FREDDIE C. HAMDY

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jyotsna Sen ◽  
Lalita Choudhary ◽  
Sanjay Marwah ◽  
Rajesh Godara ◽  
Nisha Marwah ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernst Michael Jung ◽  
Friedrich Jung ◽  
Christian Stroszczynski ◽  
Isabel Wiesinger

AbstractThe aim of this present clinical pilot study is the display of typical perfusion results in patients with solid, non-cystic breast lesions. The lesions were characterized using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with (i) time intensity curve analyses (TIC) and (ii) parametric color maps. The 24 asymptomatic patients included were genetically tested for having an elevated risk for breast cancer. At a center of early detection of familial ovary and breast cancer, those patients received annual MRI and grey-scale ultrasound. If lesions remained unclear or appeared even suspicious, those patients also received CEUS. CEUS was performed after intravenous application of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles. Digital DICOM cine loops were continuously stored for one minute in PACS (picture archiving and communication system). Perfusion images and TIC analyses were calculated off-line with external perfusion software (VueBox). The lesion diameter ranged between 7 and 15 mm (mean 11 ± 3 mm). Five hypoechoic irregular lesions were scars, 6 lesions were benign and 12 lesions were highly suspicious for breast cancer with irregular enhancement at the margins and a partial wash out. In those 12 cases, histopathology confirmed breast cancer. All the suspicious lesions were correctly identified visually. For the perfusion analysis only Peak Enhancement (PE) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) added more information for correctly identifying the lesions. Typical for benign lesions is a prolonged contrast agent enhancement with lower PE and prolonged wash out, while scars are characterized typically by a reduced enhancement in the center. No differences (p = 0.428) were found in PE in the center of benign lesions (64.2 ± 28.9 dB), malignant lesions (88.1 ± 93.6 dB) and a scar (40.0 ± 17.0 dB). No significant differences (p = 0.174) were found for PE values at the margin of benign lesions (96.4 ± 144.9 dB), malignant lesions (54.3 ± 86.2 dB) or scar tissue (203.8 ± 218.9 dB). Significant differences (p < 0.001) were found in PE of the surrounding tissue when comparing benign lesions (33.6 ± 25.2 dB) to malignant lesions (15.7 ± 36.3 dB) and scars (277.2 ± 199.9 dB). No differences (p = 0.821) were found in AUC in the center of benign lesions (391.3 ± 213.7), malignant lesions (314.7 ± 643.9) and a scar (213.1 ± 124.5). No differences (p = 0.601) were found in AUC values of the margin of benign lesions (313.3 ± 372.8), malignant lesions (272.6 ± 566.4) or scar tissue (695.0 ± 360.6). Significant differences (p < 0.01) were found in AUC of the surrounding tissue for benign lesions (151.7 ± 127.8), malignant lesions (177.9 ± 1345.6) and scars (1091 ± 693.3). There were no differences in perfusion evaluation for mean transit time (mTT), rise time (RT) and time to peak (TTP) when comparing the center to the margins and the surrounding tissue. The CEUS perfusion parameters PE and AUC allow a very good assessment of the risk of malignant breast lesions and thus a downgrading of BI-RADS 4 lesions. The use of the external perfusion software (VueBox, Bracco, Milan, Italy) did not lead to any further improvement in the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions and does appears not to have any additional diagnostic value in breast lesions.


1998 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 564-567
Author(s):  
A. Nilsson ◽  
P.-Å. Olofsson ◽  
I. Lorén ◽  
P. Nilsson

Purpose: to describe the typical colour Doppler appearance of a shunt through the parenchyma of the left lobe of the liver in portal hypertension Material and Methods: Ultrasound images of 141 patients with biopsy-verified cirrhosis were reviewed. Special note was taken of the appearance of shunts from the left portal branch Results: in 28 patients, shunts from the left portal branch were detected ultra-sonographically, 10 of which ran through the liver parenchyma on a course separated from the ligamentum teres. Seven of these 10 followed a tortuous course just below the surface of the liver creating a ball or corkscrew-like pattern Conclusion: Shunts from the left portal branch are not uncommon and may represent the only ultrasonographically detectable pathology in these patients. Recognition of the typical pattern will facilitate their detection


Eye ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahida Butt ◽  
Graham McKillop ◽  
Colm O'Brien ◽  
Paul Allan ◽  
Peter Aspinall

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document